Zeiss Otus 55mm 1.4 Lens

snakebunk

The usb dock is a brilliant way to update lenses. You buy it if you need it.

From reading reviews I don't think the IQ of the Otus motivates the price difference to the Sigma even if the Otus would have auto focus. It sure looks like a great lense though.

Nikonsince1974

Manual focus? Well in the old days that's all we had.......

Or all we STILL have :-)

haroldp

I have not used the otus, but still extensively use manual focus lenses on Leica's.

Leica states that their reason for not adopting autofocus (on the M's, and Leicaflex) is that AF requires more 'looseness' in the mount since AF motors do not have the torque of a human hand, and that would reduce the precision of the alignment in the mount that their optical designs require.

Leica (M's, and Leicaflex) lenses often incorporate floating elements to optimize both near and far field corrections which result in very complex mounts and multiple parts moving in different ways during focus.

I do not know if this is Zeiss's reasoning, and Leica are now using AF for their 'S' series MF cameras.

Many Leica lenses are outstanding performers, my Summicrons and ASPH summilux's are my sharpest lenses, and the new APO summicron may be the only lens commercially available for photography that out resolves the otus, it is corrected to industrial/military standards.

However, the best Nikon, Canon, Fuji, and Olympus lenses are also outstanding performers and are all AF, but may use optical designs that can tolerate slightly more variance.

Also, favoring near or far field is not unknown, even in Nikons best lenses, their super tele's (eg: 400/2.8) are not as good at infinity as they are at 200M.

IMHO, the lack of good MF aids in modern DSLR's is still the dominant factor in the IQ that most people will actually achieve most of the time, which is why I use MF on Leica and AF on Nikon and Fuji. (except for macro).

Regards and a happy holiday season to all..... Harold

Nikonsince1974

"IMHO, the lack of good MF aids in modern DSLR's is still the dominant factor in the IQ that most people will actually achieve most of the time, which is why I use MF on Leica and AF on Nikon and Fuji. (except for macro)."

Before my D700 had even arrived I ordered a microprism screen for it through www.focusingscreen.com. It was about $90. One look through the D700's viewfinder and I immediately knew it would be unsuitable for manual focusing. It took me about 5 minutes to install the thing and it works flawlessly. The microprism is very useable @ f/5.6 and the ground glass works beautifully past that, especially when I put a TC-300 on my 600mm f/4 AIS. How compatible is it with AF lenses? I really can't comment on that because I don't have any. Maybe others can elaborate.

Beso

The possibility that there will be a problem is small, but the paranoia amongst some potential customers over compatibility borders on excessive. To characterize offering the option of a fail-safe mechanism to ease these fears as "unprofessional bullshit" is, to put it mildly, nonsensical. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of unprofessional. It is the response of a company to meet the demands of its customer base.

To me, when a company's marketing response to a critical demand focuses on "well, you really don't need or want that anyway," and "the true art," that sounds much more to me like something that came out of a male bovine's hindquarters.

I am sure these opinions, stated as fact, are well supported but I did not see the references. Otherwise it is simply wild speculation that can only be classified as "unprofessional." I have never seen anyone's stock rise on the basis of their efforts to devalue the stock of another.

To the Moderators: This thread appears to have been hijacked and probably should be closed. There are more appropriate venues to debate autofocus vs. manual focus.

paulr

Its normal Beso that discussions go of at different tangents. The Manual/AF argument reminds me of Film/Digital and we all know where that went. The simply facts are, when you buy this lens you know its manual. So accept it, and work with what you have got. As I said in my opening, the lens does not fit the criteria of all users. Zeiss have produced something special, it feels special and produces something special.however it takes time to get used to, but once you have, It's a keeper thats for sure.

Golf007sd

@Beso: This topic. at it's heart, is about the lens manual focus operation; not about the general performance of the lens.
Hence:

The big question is yes, it's manual focus, so for some photography this lens would not be suitable.

The optical performace of this lens, in relation to other primes, have been covered quite well: for that go here.

paulr's input in worthy of a conversations, it has allowed other new members that have decades of photography experience to chime in; namely Nikonsince1974.

These type of conversations are healthy to have because it brings up valid points from all sides for those that might be interested in getting a new toy as the year come to a closure, after all it is the time of giving.

I can assure you, if the conversation turns into a pissing contest...we will address it.

Beso

@Golf007sd: Really? A member opens a forum topic and discusses personal experience and the topic devolves to brand bashing and baseless wild speculation; and that is what this forum is supposed to be about? I guess I was under the mistaken idea that the purpose of a topic was to provide a platform for discussion and exploration in a constructive and informative manner.

I will respectfully disagree with your statement and leave it at that.

donaldejose

I don't think anyone is "band bashing" as such. Many of us just think working with MF lenses is outdated unless you are working in a studio or doing landscape work. We think, if at all possible, all current lenses should be produced as AF lenses and not doing so limits their market. Certainly the optical quality of the Otus is great. But its practical use is what we question. It is very interesting to me to hear the experience of people who are still using MF lenses. Thus, I have been enjoying this tread.

WestEndFoto

I enjoy using manual focus lenses, though my experience is limited to 50mm or wider from Nikon. I find them quite useful for landscapes as they are light (f/2.8 and no auto-focus which adds bulk and weight), just as good/sharp as any auto-focus for shooting landscapes (shot between f/5.6 and f/11) and the lack of auto-focus is not an impairment in any way. I find that I actually enjoy the process of focusing manually.

It is tempting to buy something like the Otus 85. That would be an entirely different experience.

funtagraph

Do you honestly think a company "cares less" about losing sales to a Japanese company that used to make crap lenses and suddenly pros are choosing it over their lens? You really think they don't care? Any time a company hears "I would buy your product, it's awesome, but this other company offers X, so I'll buy that instead," the company cares.

I'm sorry to disagree, @pitchblack. But let me just state, I prefer an AF lens like my Sigma 50 mm Art any time. Still somehow I'm curious how an Otus would behave in certain situations. Maybe one day I borrow one and find out.

I put the numbers of Zeiss as company with various divisions in to base my idea "they don't care wether some people would like to see an Otus with AF" because in first place it's still a question of "would those people pull the trigger and spend a lot more money?" My first doubt.

Nearly 5% of their turnaround is made with consumer optics and those 5% are divided in 4 product lines of which the lenses are not the biggest. There's not much future in DSLRS according to some people - time will tell. The market of 50 mm lenses is already saturated, they can't make a much bigger fortune with an Otus AF. They drew back from Hasselblad, Rollei, Yashica/Contax/Kyocera for whatever reasons were. And with those brands they had partnership contracts and the cameras were tailored to their lenses. Yes they have electrical contacts for their Nikon and Canon mounts, but that's about it. Would any of those manufacturers provide them with AF knowledge? My second doubt.

The first F lenses for SLR appeared around 1980 and were quite bulky. That means, most optical companies do have about 30 years AF experience. Zeiss would have to start from scratch, and in the Otus optical systems they use floating elements and a huge mass of glass. To move these elements, the AF motor would have to be very powerful, fast yet accurate. That would increase size and weight, and no camera manufacturer would provide Zeiss with their acceleration curves not to speak of a firmware to address that.

Zeiss had to learn the hard way how to deal with Japanese competitors. And while CaNikon is producing (and we're buying) a lot of lenses in Thailand and China, would anybody buy a Zeiss made in China? My third doubt.

I think they do the best they can with the manual focus lenses. I'm afraid, starting with AF lenses ist just too costly. They have their customers as Leica has theirs.

And those professionals you bring as a reason to go AF for Zeiss: they already work with 16 bit files and up to 80 MP, maybe more, with their Hasselblads, PhaseOnes and Leaf backs. Why would those quality fanatics go for less, just because of the best lens there is around for Fullframe? I mean, Phase One already has a touchscreen, inbuilt WiFi and AF. 2 of those features you won't find at Nikon alright, with the new D750 it's only the touchscreen left. And the 16 bit color. And the central shutter...

Both Otuses not only are great lenses. In their class they are optically as good as it gets and the pictures I've seen from the 85 makes me just cry because with my Nikon 85/1.4 G I will never come close to them wide open. So, I do understand @paulr to get the best lens around, I just still don't understand why he's combining a high res lens with a low res sensor (compared to D8xx).

haroldp

I am somewhat perplexed by parts of this discussion.

We seem to agree as to what the facts are:
1 - Zeiss Otus and Sigma Art are noticeably better than other 50-55mm f1.4 lenses wide open (except Leica).
2- Zeiss is slightly better than Sigma wide open in the corners. (all predicated on 36mp FX sensor).
3 - Sigma is AF, Zeiss is not.

We seem to disagree as to how important each of these factors are.

While I might have observations as to facts, I cannot have an opinion on how any other person should weight those facts for their use cases, or comfort. That is entirely a personal decision and does not need justification, nor does it reflect on the validity of others decisions (including mine) .

One useful piece of info was brought to light here, Nikonsince1974 's recommendation for a focusing screen to enhance MF capability in Nikon DSLR's is very valid.

I personally find MF unreliable with Nikon's standard focusing screen, but have used microprism, split image, and ground glass very successfully with MF lenses on my Nikon F's (the first of which I acquired in 1966, and still have). I manually focus regularly with Leica's, and prefer MF for portraits (90 f2 summicron is amazing) , and where there may be clutter to fool AF, and of course for macro..

For sports, stage, or wildlife I prefer AF, but have successfully used MF in the past for these cases because AF was not yet invented (computers at the time were made of wood).

Others may prefer and take comfort as they wish, and get great results.

Regards ... Harold

Beso

@haroldp: "While I might have observations as to facts, I cannot have an opinion on how any other person should weight those facts for their use cases, or comfort. That is entirely a personal decision and does not need justification, nor does it reflect on the validity of others decisions (including mine) ."

Bingo! Well said.

Elvishefer

@Pitchblack - If you go through the exercise it would be very much appreciated if you share some of the results.

An idea:

Make a 10 panel high-res layout with images from both lenses (no exif) and number the panels. Post the collection in a new thread and make it a game... Spot the Zeiss. Invite people to record their thoughts on which of the photos came from the Zeiss. Wait a week and post the correct answers.

Would be fun to see how it turns out.

donaldejose

I believe there will be no significant visual difference and the ability to select the Otus will not be greater than chance. If there are two photos (one Otus) chance would be 50%. If there are ten photos (one Otus) chance will be 10%. If there are 10 photos with two Otus chance will be 20%. If there are 10 photos (3 Otus) chance would be 30% but in such a case I don't believe you will even reach chance odds because very few people will get all three correct. The minor differences seen on test charts won't be significant in photographs.

However, such a test will not actually test the full value of using an Otus. Some people love mechanics and working with mechanical objects. The Otus is apparently a very finely crafted mechanical and optical object and for those types of people its possession and use will provide satisfaction well beyond the superiority of any image it captures. For more practical people who need to work more quickly and more conveniently the Sigma Art will provide the greatest satisfaction while the MF Otus would be an irritant.

donaldejose

I fully agree. The mind boggles. Spending that additional money makes no sense to me. But people purchase items they value; whether or not it makes objective quantifiable sense. The same can be said of designer handbags and luxury cars. Some people purchase an "image" or "feeling" the product gives them which is not objectively quantifiable. If you do the test you suggested I think the Otus will not demonstrate superiority. BUT the people who want them will buy them anyway because their desire to purchase is not based upon objectively quantifiable data. Anyway, that is just my belief.

As an aside, I see the Otus as an historic photographic "benchmark" (as is the Nikon D800) because it started the trend of designing lenses to a higher optical level for high megapixel sensors. As Sigma produces optics which nearly reach the Otus for one fourth the cost we all benefit. As Nikon designs new optics it likely will also strive to match the Otus and Sigma Art.

I think Nikon will come out with a new high megapixel sensor of around 50 mp some time in 2015 or 2016 (essentially a D4x or D810x type body) and we will have a new benchmark sensor to test the Otus and Sigma Art lines on. I should note it does appear that the Nikon 200mm f2 already is designed to work well with high megapixel sensors as you undoubtedly have experienced.

Those of us who want to shoot 35mm size bodies (FX and DX) for their handling convenience are living in really great times as the equipment available to us is reaching into medium format quality with DSLR convenience.

spraynpray

I look forward to your comparison @PitchBlack. Personally, I find many things exulted as 'must have' or 'best of' on this forum and elsewhere are nowhere near as different as one expects in real life use.

I wonder why Zeiss don't include a focus screen in their catalogue? :-/

funtagraph

Simple answer: because it doesn't help much Maybe for persons with very good eyes and some skills to focus on matte screens it's a different story.

The main focus aid is centerred. The subjects usually aren't. Focussing first, then reframing will always lead to worse results than with LivieView if you shoot wide open. Also, adjusting the focusing screen is tricky, because for AF cameras the standard screens don't need to be assembled with the last bits of precision since the AF module does the work, no matter if the screen is placed at the right place or slightly off.

Have you ever tried to change the standard screen against a focus screen, @spraynpray? It's fiddly and most likely, after the assembly is done you would have to live with tiny dust particles on the screen. I tried once an original F6 screen provided by focusingscreen.com . No matter what I tried, after focussing manually the AF always knew better. They use some soft plastic frames to adjust the distance which work properly only in theory. Not helpful with fast wide open lenses.

spraynpray

Indeed I have @funtagraph - I regularly changed screens on my Olympus OM1 and OM2's before any of this new fangled auto-focus-schmocus. You got a small pair of tweezers with the screens and so released the frame, lowered it, exchanged screen and clicked it back up - 20 seconds work.

Back then we would manually focus and recompose very easily - there was no choice!

funtagraph

It takes a bit longer than 20 secs on a D800, I can assure you. And I'm also sure, there were not 2 plastic and one brass frame involved in that operation on your Olympuses?

Yes, in the old film days this was a way to go, but how many wide open pictures did we check for sharpness at 100%?

I'm also looking forward to @pitchblack's tests. I don't expect much to be seen in terms of sharpness. According to senscore.org and lenscore.org both lenses will outresolve the best FF sensor Nikon has to offer. D810 has a removing power of around 1050, the Sigma 1160 and the Zeiss goes way beyond with 1532. What we will see, might be differences in contrast, flare resistance, LoCA and LaCA. So for extreme situations the Zeiss is expected to top the Art lens. Question remains if those extreme situations do happen often enough to justify nearly four times the cost? And if those extreme situations leave enough time to focus super accurate? I rather take a shot home with a snappy autofocus schmocus than a nearly focused one with very low chromatic aberration...

WestEndFoto

If those test scores are reflected in real world shooting and Nikon comes out with a 54 megapixel FX camera, that will present a compelling reason to buy the Otis if you can live with manual focus.

haroldp

I think Nikon will come out with a new high megapixel sensor of around 50 mp some time in 2015 or 2016 (

The next likely evolution is the 24 mpx DX pixel pitch into FX which will yield about 54 mpx.

.. H

snakebunk

Maybe a 24 mp dx camera is needed to tell the lenses apart?

paulr

This post has seemed to become a discussion with regard to A/F manual problems. I spoke to Carl Zeiss and asked them direct why this lens was only manufactured in Manual Focus, Here is there reply.



Carl Zeiss Lenses
15 December at 11:02

Dear Paul! The Otus lenses are probably the most powerful SLR camera lenses that have ever existed. We wanted to enable photographers to fully utilize this power. The design as a manual focus lens allowed us to work with much tighter tolerances during the design phase. Furthermore, we wanted to provide users with the freedom to use the focus position as an artistic tool because it is one of the most important available to photographers. We are therefore delivering an extra fine feel and a particularly precise focusing mechanism that can only be achieved in a model featuring a lens with manual focus in an all-metal housing. This makes the lenses in the new family particularly suitable for all areas of application in which personalized, manual photography flexes its muscles, e.g. portrait, fashion and landscape photography. The integration of an autofocus motor always demands compromises on the mechanical precision of the lens design. Best regards Your ZEISS Camera Lenses Team

Before I bough this lens I did in depth research regarding this lens. I spoke to several professional photographers who owned or had serious knowledge of this lens. I asked then what they considered was the priority of this lens. Strangely enough manual focus was not even considerd as a down side, more important was the way the lens performed in difficult conditions and final results achieved.

donaldejose

Interesting comment that MF design can be more precise than AF design. Then I wonder if all the AF f1.4 lenses are "imprecise" in achieving focus at f1.4?